On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 03:28:18PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Yeah, we don't have to always adhere to the spec if we feel it doesn't
> make any sense. A lot of those fields above are purely useless and we
> shouldn't carry them blindly to the outside.
> 
> For example, we don't need to carry cpu_brand[128] to the outside for
> *every* error. Who even came up with this crap, is beyond me??? It's
> like the cpu changes brand on every other error or what? You harvest
> this info only *once* from /proc/cpuinfo. cpu_version too. And so on and
> so on...
> 
> Please sanity-check stuff like that before hardcoding it into the
> tracepoint. If it is in the spec it doesn't always mean it makes sense.
> We need to carry out only the minimum amount of information of each
> error which is actually getting used in userspace, for additional RAS
> actions. Carrying fat blobs just because the spec says so is simply
> wrong.
> 
I agree. But at least for memory, I want to show them all. Maybe
requestor_id/responder_id/target_id are not so important. But in
reality, I've never seen they are valid. So just leave them there.